Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I'm not able to offer a suitable definition without long cogitation to withstand the legal level of scrutiny applied to many of my posts but here's an excerpt from the wiki page that might offer enough of an idea.

Quote:

The term 'sonata form' is controversial and has been called misleading by scholars and composers almost from its inception. Its originators implied that there was a set template to which Classical and Romantic composers aspired, or should aspire to.

However, sonata form is presently viewed as a model for musical analysis, rather than compositional practice. Although the descriptions on this page could be considered an adequate analysis of many first-movement structures, there are enough variations that theorists such as Charles Rosen have felt them to warrant the plural in 'Sonata forms.'

I don't mean forms as related to the sonata-allegro principle. Let me try asking a different way: what are some examples of fixed forms? Then I'll try to infer what defines "form" (as distinct from "principle"). PM me if you prefer.

There was great debate at the time I was studying this stuff about the meaning of sonata form. My tutors were constantly reminding us that it was a principle not a form and there was a push to have it known as Sonata Principle rather than Sonata Form. It hasn't happened universally. While there is wide acceptance of the three part structure of Exposition, Development and Recapitulation, there is wide diversity between sonatas as to the distinct forms within those sections. So much so that it was considered better to classify the structure around the tonality and thematic content combined and it's use of keys, the principle of its construction, rather than its physical form which changes from sonata to sonata.

This is interesting and it makes sense.

We're at a simpler stage here. If we can get what the general outline of sonata form is, so that we can recognize it, then we've done what we need to do.

The specific problem was confusion between "sonata" and "sonata form", one being the collection, and one being what happens within a movement. This is elementary knowledge that has to be there.[

Quote:

That same principle has been used for sonatas, symphonies, overtures and more. It became all-pervasive because of its versatility - and lack of fixed form.

We have a principle, and we also have a loose structure. Regardless of how we call this loose structure. The reason why "sonata form" is taught in at least an elementary way, is because it gets adapted into all kinds of things so we'd better recognize it in a general way.

At this point we are learning to recognize this structure, and also when it is and isn't there.

Those are interesting articles. Thank you, keystring. However, Wiki won't help me understand the distinctions Richard is making, since that article lists "sonata form," the precise thing with which Richard makes the contrast of fixed forms vs. the sonata principle.

Those are interesting articles. Thank you, keystring. However, Wiki won't help me understand the distinctions Richard is making, since that article lists "sonata form," the precise thing with which Richard makes the contrast of fixed forms vs. the sonata principle.

I think I understand what Richard's professor was trying to expressing by coining that expression, and what distinction was being made.

You have music where the form is the thing, and the music is written into the form strictly. Actually, if you look up "fixed form" you'll find that in an earlier period, there were three forms (Virelai is one I remember) that had a rigid form. Well, think in poetry - the Haiku that must have 17 syllables, and the point of the poem is to write 17 syllables.

"Sonata form" - in contrast - has a rough framework. It grew out of earlier forms, and the mentality was also changing in later periods. Your rough framework is that something is set up in the beginning that has at least two ideas (Exposition), then you get to play around (Development), and then you go back to your original ideas (Recapitulation). You can go a million directions with this. You can use it to express things. You can create drama and so forth. The purpose is no longer to fit music into a form, but to use this loose framework to express whatever you want to express. This is what I think the contrast is.

The wikki article reminded me of what I read about form in Goetschius, which is also what gave me the first real picture of what "form" is about. It was super important for me, and it might also go toward what Richard was expressing.

Goetschius starts by talking about the nature of music, which he describes as being "painted on a canvas of time". The factor of time is important, because music is something that happens in real time, and we experience. A painting, otoh, is something that we see instantly as a whole, and we can then examine it at our leisure.

Music cannot be 20 minutes of random notes, or the listener would be disoriented and lost. Music has to have a predictable element - something for the listener to be oriented and relate to - and it also must have variety so that the listener doesn't get bored. The three elements of music that the composer plays with are time (rhythm etc.), harmony (vertical part, progressions etc.), and melody. At the most elementary level, these are the three elements we look at when studying musical form. Meanwhile, "form" is what we get when trying to create some kind of pattern for the predictable part. (All this is Goetschius).

We get some of this explained in Wikki. And we also get a list of "forms", knowing at the same time that there is a lot of variety within these forms.

I was thinking about the rigid forms. What if you had to invent on the spot in some kind of musical situation? In that case you would need the form to be rigid. We know that the early musicians would have to accompany singing, and all they had was the figured bass, and a keyboard that had no sustain. So they had to create a flurry of notes that also had to be interesting. If form were unpredictable, the keyboardist would get lost. So maybe that's one reason for rigid form. How closely do jazz players stay to the 12 bars of 12 bar blues when they're doing their thing? (fuzzy territory for me).

I was also remembering tidbits about the Renaissance. The high class people had to be the "Renaissance man/woman", having studied the fine arts, and knowing the musical forms of the day. Knowing these things also set them apart from the rabble. We read of composers who wrote music for a king or other noble, and who did clever things - like spelling a secret message - or turning something upside down in form - to the king's delight. The nobles were specialists who looked for such things. A later audience wouldn't know an inverted line of music if it wore a party hat and tapped them on the shoulders. So any fascination with form would no longer exist.

Greener, I had an odd thought about the variations. I know that you play by ear, and imagine that you improvise. Well what about reverse engineering these variations? Imagine that you are starting off with the naked theme as it appears before the variations, along with those chord progressions, and then how many different things you might do to improvise them - the variations are essentially improvisations, I'd think. And then listen to them as you would listen to someone improvising on a theme.

I didn't think I was introducing anything new. Many might say that I just didn't think; a claim I cannot entirely dismiss.

This is an [altered] extract from the Monlight sonata thread, 17 August.

A sonata in a major key may or may not begin with an introduction.It may have one subject in the tonic or a group of subjects.It may or may not have a bridge passage to the second subject.It may have one subject in the dominant or a group of subjects contrasting with the first.It may or may not have a codetta.It will have a development section where something from the exposition will be developed through a variety of keys, expanded, contracted, modified, etc. It may or may not have a passage of dominant preparation or other codetta.It will recapitulate the first subject or group of subjects and they may or may not have changed after the development.If there is a bridge passage it will have changed from the first half as it no longer has to change to the dominant. Schubert cannily began the recapitulation in the subdominant so that he could leave the bridge passage unchanged and still end up in the tonic!It will recapitulate the second subject or group of subjects first heard in the dominant.It may or may not have a coda.

And from the next day...

"Form is not a straightjacket that composers must adhere to. It's a way of making order out of chaos. We need to understand what form is in order to appreciate the structure of the music we're listening to. It is not set down by the composer as a pattern to work to but it is applied by analysts after the fact in order to see how the piece differs from some kind of norm, how the composer has diverged from previous works or altered the form in some way and expanded the prevailing musical vocabulary."

There is a problem when teaching something that is brand new. You may know of exceptions and that it isn't straightjacketed into a definition in reality. But for the student when everything under the sun is new, they need some kind of a handle. That's why in teaching reading and writing of English, we teach phonetic rules, "When two vowels go a-walking, the first one does the talking.", hastily amended by "i before e, after a c or G." and then try to explain "receive". We're walking a balance between giving some kind of landmarks, and knowing those landmarks are approximations. When beginning anything we need some things to be clear cut, without falling into the trap of thinking they are in that strict form.

The first time I started to study sonata form, it was via "Materials of Western Music". It gave the Exp, Dev, Recap form. It also said that the exposition has two subjects in tonic-dominant or tonic-parallel keys, a "bridge", and a codetta. It was nice and neat. I would have been in the danger of thinking that's what sonatas have. But there can be more than two subjects, etc.

I've moved on to other sonatas since that time, and have started to taste the varied ways this "form" was used. I do want to hold on to the loose framework, because I need some kind of a framework. And when I began, I liked staying with simple straightforward pieces that were written to formula, until I had a feel for this type of thing.

What you said about the forms being needed to give a pattern to sounds heard in time is illuminating to me.

At the point that I ran into Goetschius, I was doing formal theory in books, and a lot of things were bothering me. For example, we had chords, and the "melody line" was simply whatever notes were in the chord. Then we got to do things like scales, and the extra notes were called "passing tones". Everything seemed to be about chords, and only chords. The "Western Music" book at least considered rhythm as a factor. But altogether we were following these rules which made us write music that sounded like Bach chorales without the genius.

Then along came this Goetschius writing around 1912, giving this first definition. He then started introducing some of the things that I studied, but he always considered the three elements: harmony, melody, time. He turned the definition of "cadence" on its head. No, it was not about V7-I, V7-vi, V-I, IV-I or any particular set of chords. Which had already fallen apart, because in my other theory books I was "prolonging the tonic" at the start of a piece with V-I-V-I-V which was not "cadencing". No.... a cadence was a pause or ending, and these chords were part of this pause or ending. The other factor was rhythm.... a break in the rhythm, a lengthening, a something. And what was happening in the melody was also a factor. We had the three things to look at - not just chords.

keystring, do you know the name of the Goetschius book? I'm trying to find it on interlibrary loan. It sounds wonderful.

I downloaded and printed it out. "Lessons in Music Form - A Manual of Analysis" - side note scribbled in "IMSLP & Project Gutenberg" www.gutenberg.org.

The book is very condensed, like Horwood, but even denser. I'd study a single paragraph like these days you'd study ten pages. Assignments at the end of each chapter lists movements and spans of measures for around 20 pieces. He lists which works he wants students to have. I downloaded them all via IMSLP and printed them out. They're all in a big plastic box.

- the period-form- enlargement of the period form- two part song form- three-part song form- enlargement of three-part song form- song form with trio- first rondo form - evolution, rondo forms- second rondo form - details- third rondo form - exposition, middle division, recap.- sonatine form (classification of larger forms, sonatine)- sonata-allegro form- irregular forms- application of the forms (appl. of several designs in practical composition)

Works you must have in order to do the exercises- Mendelssohn Songs Without Words- Schumann Jugend Album Op. 28- Mozart piano sonatas- Beethoven sonatas

He also makes reference to symphonies of Beethoven, sonatas of Schubert, mazurkas of Chopin, and other piano compositions of Mendelssohn, Beethoven, Chopin, and Brahms

In my local three-college library consortium, there are a bunch of fascinating titles by Goetschius:

The homophonic forms of musical composition, an exhaustive treatise on the structure and development of musical forms, 1898.

The homophonic forms of musical composition : an exhaustive treatise on the structure and development of musical forms from the simple phrase to the song-form with "trio", 1913.

Essentials in music history, by Thomas Tapper and Percy Goetschius, 1914.

The larger forms of musical composition; an exhaustive explanation of the variations, rondos, and sonata designs, for the general student of musical analysis, and for the special student of structural composition, 1915.

The material used in musical composition; a system of harmony designed originally for use in the English harmony classes of the conservatory of music at Stuttgart, 1923.

Exercises in melody-writing : a systematic course of melodic composition designed for the use of young music students, chiefly as a course of exercise collateral with the study of harmony, 1928.

Masters of the symphony / by Percy Goetschius ; Fifth year of a study course in music understanding, adopted by the National Federation of Music Clubs, 1929.

Counterpoint applied in the invention, fugue, canon and other polyphonic forms; an exhaustive treatise on the structural and formal details of the polyphonic or contrapuntal forms of music, for the use of general and special students of music, 1930.

Lessons in music form, a manual of analysis of all the structural factors and designs employed in musical compositions, 1940 (?).

The theory and practice of tone relations; a condensed course of harmony conducted upon a contrapuntal basis, 1940 (?).

Some of these are later editions, so the timeline may not match up with when he wrote them. They all look fascinating to me. So many books, so little time!

[ETA: I see it now; it's on my list near the end as a 1940 reprint...]

...Imagine that you are starting off with the naked theme as it appears before the variations, along with those chord progressions, and then how many different things you might do to improvise them - the variations are essentially improvisations, I'd think....

Var II

Lots of colour and trills but otherwise not venturing much off the melody and harmony of the theme in this variation. It is like a reinstatement of the main theme with some added ornaments after the wandering about in the wilderness a bit in Var I.

The main melody and harmony is followed very closely in every bar. M12 in fact is identical melody and beat treatment in m12 as M12 of the main theme.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Good discussion on Sonata and music form types. Proves again for me, how much more there is to learn as I continue to learn more.

I like how he keeps the theme in RH at M41 while he moves the triplets there out of LH.

This would be m5 of Var II by the measure numbering I had posted -- I started the numbering anew for each of the variations. Nonetheless, easy enough to do the math and correlate to where you are.

Yes, agree. This is a nice RH move to triplets in the second occurrence of the phrase. In the second half, he does this again but not for a complete phrase. Rather just the two bar extension and final cadence in m17-m18 ... (m53-m54).

Var III

We are taking a minor detour to the parallel A minor in this variation. I think one needs to use their imagination here a bit, to relate this back to the main theme. It feels like Wolfgang may be leading us through a dream like state in this variation. This would make sense as it will bring us to about mid point in the movement. I would expect thus, for things to pick up again (indeed it appears they will) in the next variation. Meanwhile, this is a lovely minor contrast.

I would say the harmony is the biggest variant. Second biggest is the flowing and even dynamics. No harsh or abruptness in this variation, in much contrast to Var I for example.

Var. 3I don't need to use as much imagination here. Comparing the main theme with this variant (and the first) I once again see the first and third notes of the bar taking on more importance than others. Likewise the start and ends of phrases and phrase precedence. It's not unlike establishing importance from word order in a Latin sentence.

The more I look at this the more I see a formula emerging for improvisation. Take a simple theme, double the notes (var. 1), triple the notes (Var. 2), go into the minor key (Var. 3), cross hands (var. 4), slow down and quadruple the notes (Var. 5)...

Var. 3The more I look at this the more I see a formula emerging for improvisation. Take a simple theme, double the notes (var. 1), triple the notes (Var. 2), go into the minor key (Var. 3), cross hands (var. 4), slow down and quadruple the notes (Var. 5)...

Sorry for delay in getting back to this. Just seeing this for the first time now as was preoccupied a bit since my last post and away on travels over the weekend. I will get caught up and see what else I may have to add to discussion with Var 4,5 & 6 ... uhmm ... soon (this work week for sure.)

Meanwhile, also working more on Chopin pieces (post Mendelssohn recording) and have a question about the Piu Lento of Op 64 No. 2.

Although, I think it is obvious what I need to do, I don't think I have come across it before. For example, at the end of M2 of this section, the LH is playing (bottom up) A Db F. The A is held over to the next beat though and I add a Db below it. Again, at the end of line one in M6 ... LH is playing B natural and a Gb above it. The B natural is held to the next beat where we add a Eb on the bottom.

So, I need to shift the fingering of my LH while holding these tagged notes without playing these notes again. Is this correct?

I am also preoccupied at present so delays are not a problem for me. I prefer the extra time in the thread to consider more appropriately what's been said and what to say.

For the waltz: in M66 I'd be using 4-2-1 for Ab-Db-F. Change to 3-2-1 for A-Db-F, last beat of M66, hold the A with 3rd finger, release the upper two notes and pivot your hand on the A while your 5th finger swings down to Db. Likewise in M70 on the B.

For the waltz: in M66 I'd be using 4-2-1 for Ab-Db-F. Change to 3-2-1 for A-Db-F, last beat of M66, hold the A with 3rd finger, release the upper two notes and pivot your hand on the A while your 5th finger swings down to Db. Likewise in M70 on the B.

Brilliant. It works great. I hadn't thought of that and better then trying to switch fingers on the same note as I had been. The trickiest part now is M72-M74 ... coming along fine though, with some careful finger planning.

Hopefully, I will get back to the Wolfgang analysis this weekend. I had to postpone again for some re-recording of Mendelssohn with some new gear.

The more I look at this the more I see a formula emerging for improvisation. Take a simple theme, double the notes (var. 1), triple the notes (Var. 2), go into the minor key (Var. 3), cross hands (var. 4), slow down and quadruple the notes (Var. 5)...

Var VI

This is the first meter change we've seen ... to common time.

It seems to me sort of like a brief summation of some key elements of previous Vars. It starts off more similar to the original theme than the other Vars so far, but different meter of course. Otherwise I don't think much new introduced that we haven't skirted around with previously in this movement. It sort of behaves then, like a recap. would. But it is not a recap. of course and not complete of aspects of all the Vars ... perhaps just highlights.

Also, there is an 8 bar coda added on to finish this movement.

Am I on track with any of this?

BTW, where'd everybody go? We started out with tons of enthusiasm on this new work -- as we often do -- but this has since petered off to once again just you and me, Richard.

Well, the variations are sort of the same thing over and over again with - um - variations. I didn't know what else to write about them. I analyzed a Beethoven sonata with variations recently. What you're doing now was a good stepping stone for that, because Beethoven goes much further afield with it.

Translation: The Minuet and Trio are both in rounded binary form (as minuets are) meaning that we have an A section which repeats, then a B section followed by a modified A which also repeats. The Trio has a different, softer atmosphere to it, and it is also in rounded binary form. We then go da capo back to the Minuet.

My notes say that the Minuet is in A major in the first part. Some interesting things seem to be happening at the start of the B section until it settles down to repeating the A section (rounded binary).

The Trio is also in rounded binary form. I have it starting in D major with a note about a "toggle" between E and A (E being the V of A) until it settles into an A7 to bring us back to the D of the start of the Trio for the first time round.

In the second portion we slip from that A chord, up a half step to a B7 which is sort of interesting and then I have "E minor" written down - then C major "morphing into A" which eventually brings us back to the theme of the beginning of the trio.

Something I found personally interesting since I'm learning about these things were the occasions of augmented sixths. For example, in m. 33 you have Bb D F# G#, which if you play it sounds like a Bb7 (Bb D F# Ab). Instead of resolving to Eb (which the Bb7 would do), this moves from Bb to A, as follows (reading vertically along the bass chords)

G# => A (hence it's G# and not Ab, as it would be in a Bb7)D => C# (down a half step)Bb => A

My synopsis of the variations wasn't intended to finish the analysis. There were difficulties in the Clementi sonatinas (and the Haydn) recognising musical ideas when they weren't repeated note for note. These variations offered an opportunity to compare measure by measure and see how they differ from the main theme and the other variations.

In comparing them there might be light thrown on what or where are the important features of a theme and/or its harmony and how much of its skeletal structure needs to be present to still be recognisable.______________________________

Not sure if we covered this here or if I did it on RST as part of my Sunday Classical postings but the Trio was so called because the double (as it was known in Bach's suites) was given to a trio of instruments in Lully's orchestra (bassoon and oboes if memory serves). Lully's work with the Sun King's musician's pretty much established the make up of the orchestra up to today.